Monthly Archives:
July 2014

Introduction

Much of the debate around the value of science in philosophy has been stimulated by the works of Thomas Kuhn; particularly his controversial book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Its controversy was based in its fundamental rejection of many ‘paradigms’ (sorry for the nerd pun) surrounding science in the early half of the twentieth century. He left both his contemporaries and predecessors aside in proposing that “reason and evidence can play only a limited role in determining the outcome of scientific revolutions”. [1]

Because of this, Kuhn faced harsh criticisms by philosophers in the wake of his book being published. They deplored his disregard for scientific realism and for claiming that scientific revolutions are largely “a matter for mob psychology”. [2] Nonetheless, Kuhn addressed his critics responses in a lecture in 1973 titled, Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice (article on this lecture upcoming). He argued for a shared set of values between scientists who hold competing theories and from this shared value set he can support a notion of rational scientific revolutions. He, however, did not relinquish his objections to scientific realism and continued to hold the belief that science functions as a set of tools used for solving puzzles, rather than a system of literal descriptions of reality.

***

The following articles in this series will look at Khuns position in more depth as well as the arguments proposed by his most ardent critics. I hope that you enjoy these series of philosophy of science articles and I look forward to engaging with you in the comment section below. If you have any article request that you would like me to look at and write an article on please feel free to contact me via The Leather Library Contact Page.

Over the last year I have been providing all of you content on the history and philosophy of science. However, as you would have noticed, I have slowed down this series. Currently, The Leather Library has produced posts regarding Science vs. Pseudoscience and thought experiments, however, I want continue the series of articles by writing them on other areas of philosophy of science. These topics will include:

Rationality, Objectivity, and Values in Science

The Duhem-Quine Thesis and Underdetermination

Induction, Prediction, and Evidence

Confirmation and Relevance: Bayesian Approaches

Models of Explanation

Laws of Nature

Intertheoretic Reduction

Empiricism and Scientific Realism

The articles that will be written will be based off of the articles found by prominent philosophers of science in an anthology volume titled, Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. I hope that you enjoy the posts as much as I enjoy writing them.

I sent a few questions to Rebecca Goldstein’s website, thinking I’d get no reply. She’s a busy person, after all. But she was so kind as to respond to my questions with very thoughtful answers that I’d like to share with you as a follow up to my review.

I thank you for the lovely and thoughtful review of Plato at the Googleplex. I’m under a lot of time pressure right now, but I couldn’t avoid answering your thoughtful questions. Please forgive the inadequacy of the too-brief answers.

Your questions deserve far more.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Newberger Goldstein

1. What is your best argument against scientific reductionism?

RG: I don’t know how you mean this question, since I don’t know whether you’re equating “scientific reductionism” with the materialist understanding of the mind. (By “materialist understanding of the mind” I mean that the mind is nothing over and above neurological processes). If you are, then I don’t have an argument against scientific reductionism. At this point in our scientific knowledge, it’s improbable that mind is anything over and above neurological processes. But if you mean by “scientific reductionism” the view that all information about the mind can be derived from neurological information (which might seem to follow from materialism but doesn’t) then I would be prepared to argue against reductionism. The best argument? Well, at least part of the best argument is to see that the materialist understanding of the mind doesn’t entail scientific reductionism. The mind is nothing else but brain processes but could we capture all that there is to a person—all the phenomenological richness and subtle overlays of deliberations, emotions, memories, moods, and so much more—from a description, no matter how complicated, of neurological processes?

2. Do you think Socrates was immoral in being politically abstinent?

RG: I don’t think that he was politically abstinent. He participated when he was called upon to do so, though he wouldn’t follow orders that he thought were immoral, as Plato tells us in the Apology. But more importantly, he considered the enterprise to which he devoted his life—trying to awaken his fellow citizens from their dogmatic slumbers (to use a famous phrase anachronistically) was itself political action. He involved himself in the life of his polis, hoping to effect change by getting people to rethink their assumptions. For him, good politics could only be the result of good philosophy. What he rejected—and this put him in opposition to his polis—was that ethics could be entirely absorbed into politics: to be a good person was to live the life of a good citizen as defined by the laws of Athens. Rather he thought that the laws themselves must undergo evaluation by the lights of philosophy. For a Greek, to think about the good life in isolation from one’s political responsibilities was idiotic. Almost literally idiotic. The word “idiot” derives from the Greek word for private, idios. To the Greeks, and this includes Socrates, to think that you can live a good life that is entirely private, with no thought of what you should contribute to your polis, was idiocy.

3. Why is it necessary for philosophy to make progress in order to be useful and deserving of study?

RG: I don’t think there’s any such necessity for philosophy to make progress in order for it to be worthwhile of study. I happen to think that some areas of philosophy have made progress and that the progress has been beneficial to society at large. I’m thinking specifically of progress in moral philosophy which has filtered out into progressive movements for individual rights. And then sometimes ideas explored in philosophy lead to scientific progress—sometimes to the creation of whole new scientific fields. Physics, psychology, linguistics, mathematical logic, computer science all were hatched from philosophy. And sometimes it’s the work of philosophers that drives some progress within scientific fields. Einstein, for example, used ideas he got from Ernst Mach to develop a key idea in relativity theory. These are just historical facts, and they point to some of the usefulness of philosophy, but not all of it. In fact, I’d say that one of the most useful lessons to be learned from philosophy, including those areas where progress of this straightforward type can’t be pointed to, is in learning about the limits of human knowledge and reason. Our continued bafflement over such questions as free will and the hard problem of consciousness and the a priori nature of mathematical knowledge is a good lesson in species-humility. And that’s useful!

The staff at The Leather Library thank Dr. Goldstein for taking the time out of her busy schedule to answer these questions. It is a testament to her love of philosophy as well as her compulsion to spread its influence. We hope that you enjoyed this short interview and we all highly recommend that you check out Rebecca’s new book, Plato at the Googleplex, now for sale on Amazon.

When my friend told me she heard on NPR that there was a new book out in which “some female philosopher” resurrects the voice of Plato to address today’s moral issues, I took a wild guess as to the author: Rebecca Goldstein.

Maybe the guess wasn’t so wild. I had read The Mind-Body Problem and there aren’t that many right now contemporary female philosophers I know of who are well-versed in Plato and who write fiction. (Although in hindsight I suppose Muriel Barbery would have been a good guess too.) This, I said to myself, is a must-read. For those of you who are reticent about reading philosophy or find the language a bit daunting, I highly recommend this book. Anyone on the street can pick this up and understand it. I recently recommended Plato’s Republic to a friend, but then I changed my mind and told him to read this instead. It’s way more accessible.

The book has a hybrid fiction/non-fiction structure in which the chapters alternate between ancient Greek history and fictional dialogue between Plato and several key figures, including a Freudian psychoanalyst, a neuroscientist, and a cocky cable news host. While the history is clearly written and flows like a novel, the real excitement for me comes when Plato is interpreted through fiction, because doing so gives the author the opportunity to cut through academic hemming and hawing to make philosophy come alive. So I’m not going to talk about the history sections very much. I’m going to focus on what’s new and salient in Plato @ the Googleplex:

PLATO’S CHARACTER:

Plato’s not a Luddite, even though one would think he’d find information technology a mere shadow of authentic wisdom. Kudos to Goldstein for depicting Plato three-dimensionally as an idealist and pragmatist who doesn’t pooh pooh the information of the masses. Once he finds out that Google is the storehouse for nearly endless information, he’s found throughout each scene clutching his Chromebook, using it as a tool to learn nearly as much about neuroscience as the neuroscientist in the final dialogue.

When a female ‘interlocutor’ corrects Plato’s masculine pronouns, he immediately takes her side. From then on out he never fails in gender inclusivity. This jives with Plato’s “paradoxical” equal opportunity for women in the Republic.

Plato’s results in the Myers-Briggs Psychometric Questionnaire: INTJ—Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Judging Type. (I got the same results, and so did my friends. Maybe we’re on our way to becoming philosopher kings?) Click the link to take it yourself.

Plato is intellectually honest. When he turns out to be wrong, he admits it. For instance, he concedes that our democratic society has made moral progress since his day…even though this confession threatens to undermine the premise of his Republic. The Freudian psychoanalyst argues in favor of democracy because “Humanity should never be frozen into a vision of the best. A creative society must be willing to tolerate some degree of instability because creativity is inherently unstable” (217). As far as the argument goes, she gets the last word.

Goldstein’s Plato is not dogmatic, does not necessarily believe in his own theory of Forms, and is sometimes wrong. As RG puts it, “Above all, my Plato is the philosopher who teaches us that we should never rest assured that our view, no matter how well argued and reasoned, amounts to the final word on any matter. And that includes our view of Plato” (396).

Goldstein argues against the idea that science alone can lay claim to all knowledge. While science progresses, so too does philosophy. This is the major point throughout her book.

She also argues that, for Plato at least, the abstract (such as the ‘forms’ and mathematical entities) is to be discovered rather than created. “Abstract truths are out there waiting to be discovered, just as scientific truths are out there waiting to be discovered” (47).

Is it immoral to be politically abstinent? Goldstein asks in the chapter Socrates Must Die. An interesting question when you consider Nazi Germany. I couldn’t quite find her conclusion to this question, or if her purpose was simply to interpret Socrates’ position, but it’s a good question and one I’ve asked myself many times. Her interpretation of Socrates is much more multi-faceted and complex than I.F. Stone’s anti-democratic version in The Trial of Socrates, which reduced Socrates’ motivations to exclusively political terms as if all he did were play party politics with the rest of us.

The unexamined life is not worth living…a pretty strong claim if you think about it. Are all those reality-TV-watching, celebrity-following lives—these are my words now—really not worth living? This smacks of worse-than-smug elitism. Goldstein anticipates the standard protests that Plato was an elitist, not fighting the charge so much as explaining why his views make sense. The philosopher kings don’t rule according to their whims, but according to what’s good. Might does not make right. If people were truly capable of governing in this way, the elitism in the Republic would not be a bad thing, even if it meant a small group of moral experts telling everyone what to do. After all, we trust the dentist with our teeth, we trust the doctor with our health…ah…maybe…we trust the tax guy with our taxes…okay. Well. You get the idea.

The best answer to the elitism charge comes in the chapter, Plato at the Googleplex. There she has a software engineer defend an interesting form of democratic knowledge. He proposes an Ethical Answers Search Engine, EASE, which he thinks would be superior to having moral experts. The folks at Google could devise a way to crowd-source wisdom so that everyone’s an expert and no one a ruler. But, Plato points out, who determines how EASE operates? Who programs it? Aren’t we back to the same elitist government in which the few rule the many? Brilliantly done. This chapter is my favorite for its literary finesse and depth of ideas.

In the final dialogue, Plato gets his brain scanned and discusses with a neuroscientist whether or not science has the final word on moral agency, whether neuroscience eliminates the Self, as well as right and wrong. The neuroscientist scoffs Plato for invoking a “ghost in the machine,” and claims that there is no free will, only imagined free will. Plato can’t outright disprove the neuroscientist’s claims, there are no arguments against per se, but he and a cognitive science grad student appeal to common sense. Where in all those numbers is there a coherent account of who we are? How can we hold people responsible for their actions without free will? How can there be rationalizing with no rationalizer?

This last chapter hits on what has been a hot topic in the blog-o-sphere lately. What do y’all think? I’m going to assume that most of you find it at least odd, if not wrong, to claim there is rationalizing with no rationalizer, but is there a way to disprove scientific reductionism or do we simply have to appeal to common sense or experience? Is it enough to say that science can’t lay claim to all knowledge because doing so is doing philosophy—which undermines the original argument?

Or how about another question for those who don’t want to weigh in on the first. Is it ethical to be apolitical? Are we morally obligated to “rock the vote”? Or just comment on whatever. That’s more democratic, right?

I would like to welcome and introduce the staff that will be working here at The Diogenes Society. I hope that they will produce content that is to all of your liking and will be as thought provoking as they are fun to write.

Stefan Morrone is currently a third-year student enrolled in the Bachelor of Journalism program at Ryerson University in Toronto. He enjoys writing about a variety of subjects including sports, history, literature and gaming. He has written for publications such as PanoramItalia Magazine, the Ryerson Folio Magazine and the Ryerson Eyeopener Newspaper. After finishing his four year program he hopes to move on to write in the newspaper or online sectors of journalism.

Tina Lee Forsee graduated from Marlboro College with a Plan of Concentration in Philosophy and French, a result of her love affair with Plato. (The French was purely incidental, but it all worked out. Never mind that she can’t really speak it. Not even after a semester abroad.) Kant and Husserl are pretty high on her list. Aristotle too.

She moved to Tucson, Arizona from Brattleboro, Vermont. This year she went to Greece and Sicily to do research on her novel, tentatively titled Philosopher King, which is about a philosophy professor who gets charged with sexual harassment and finds himself, despite his apolitical soul, having to finally act against his politically correct environment. It’s about spiritual redemption through reason, not despite reason. Perhaps the elevator tag-line will be: The un-lived life is not worth examining. In her first week of starting her blog, Diotima’s Ladder, she had the great fortune of finding like-minded souls at The Diogenes Society and The Leather Librarywhere she is now an editor! She looks forward to rooting around through your ideas.

Sarah Abbett is a writer, student, a sister of one younger brother and the owner (or the owned, depending on your point of view) of one cat. She has loved to read ever since she knew how (probably since she was 3-4). It took a while longer for her to love writing, but they now have a beautiful friendship

Sarah has often found herself in a library, pouring over a book, with the afternoon light streaming in, wondering if she hadn’t managed to find a small piece of heaven on earth. She appreciates any helpful critique you would be so kind to give for her writing. She hopes to be a published author some day and part of the reason she blogs is practice, so she can hone in her craft. Sarah’s skills have lead her to became a contributor here at The Diogenes Society as well as an author at The Leather Library. Sarah is also the executive editor at Silly Civil Liberties and Book Phoenix.

Shaun Stanley is currently studying philosophy at the Masters level and he has a BA (Hons) degree in philosophy and a BA degree in Philosophy and Political Studies. Shaun also teaches philosophy at university. Of course he is interested in philosophy, science, and politics, but also the relationships between these different fields. Shaun’s remarkable philosophical mind has lead him here to write for The Diogenes Society. He is also a contributor at The Leather Library

Well, thats it for now. The Diogenes Society is always looking for great new staff members to contribute to the cynical discussion. If you want to be part of this new and exciting team please Contact Us

Every April 15th, it’s American tradition to moan and groan about having to pay taxes no matter how much you appreciate the things provided with taxes.

Among other powers, the IRS can audit you (which means they can check over your records), garnish your wages, and imprison you if your trespasses are egregious enough. Nobody likes them, but just about everyone thinks of them as reasonably “fair” – or, at least, if you’re in trouble with the IRS, it’s likely your fault, not theirs.

Or, at least, they did until May 2014.

It all started in July 2008, with a conservative lobbying group called Citizens United. They wanted to run a series of commercials promoting a film targeting Hillary Clinton. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that they couldn’t. The group appealed and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. I won’t bore you with all the particulars, but the outcome is important to the story: In January 2010, the Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing it in part. The Court found it was unconstitutional to ban free speech. As a result, the number of nonprofits applying for tax exempt status dramatically increased.

March 2010 was where it all started to go wrong.

Some IRS agents in Cincinnati, Ohio began to target groups based on key words, specifically, words that were overwhelmingly conservative in nature. In August of 2010, the IRS issued a BOLO (Be On the Look Out) for specific words, mostly revolving around Tea Party groups (which are wholly conservative). In June 2011, the BOLO increased its targets to include other conservative groups, including phrases like patriots, 9/12, and constitutional literacy. Then acting Director of Exempt Organizations, Lois Lerner, was advised of the practice.

And did nothing.

It wasn’t until February 2012, almost two years after the targeting began, that any news of it at all was reported to the media. And it still attracted relatively little notice. On March 22, 2012, then Commissioner of the IRS Doug Shulman testified before Congress that there was absolutely no targeting going on. One could argue that even if the Commissioner of the IRS actually didn’t know what was going on, he should have. (He ended up stepping down at the end of his term, just before the scandal began to garner more media attention and then gave a non-apology apology – if you can call it an apology). On May 10, 2013, Lerner admitted the targeting. And the next day, the IRS released an audit admitting wrong doing. On May 14, 2013, the Federal Bureau of Investigations opened a criminal probe into IRS activities. Also in this month, Shulman was informed by previous IRS Commissioner Steven Miller of what had been going on. (Steven Miller would later take Shulman’s place).

(Interestingly enough, it was Attorney General Eric Holder who asked for the investigation. Why interesting? Well, let’s just say that Eric Holder has somecharacterissuesin hisrecord).

Of course, probes don’t necessarily mean there’s anything to see there. And nobody wants groups taking advantage of the rules unfairly. But as we now know, there wasn’t so much a smoking gun in the IRS as there was a five alarm fire. And another grand American tradition began: lawsuits. Very expensive lawsuits.

The probe revealed, among other things, that Cincinnati was not the only office to be affected by the BOLO. Agents in Washington D.C. and at least two offices in California also had the BOLO lists. A number of the conservative groups had to wait for years for their applications to go through while more progressive groups had their applications approved on the spot. It is true that some groups should have been investigated. (In other words, to give credit where credit is due, the IRS was doing its job with some of the applications).

But the biggest surprise was on Wednesday, May 22, 2013. Lois Lerner went before Congress; she said, and I quote: “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.” She then pled the 5th. (The amendment against self-incrimination). Which is an interesting plea for someone who hasn’t done anything wrong or broken any laws. (She also took this moment to claim she was bad at math. Maybe not the best excuse for someone who is in a position of authority at the IRS). Former Commissioner Shulman claimed he was “absolutely sure” he hadn’t told anybody in the White House about the targeting of groups, despite his visits there (though it does not appear they occurred as often as some have asserted).

When the proverbial shit hit the fan, Americans were, shall we say, displeased.

Finally, things quieted down for a little while until December, when Commissioner Werfel stepped down. January 2014 was when the FBI revealed there would be no criminal charges resulting from their probe. Which made lawmakers unhappy. In January 2014, John Koskinen was appointed IRS Commissioner by President Obama. Which gives us a reason for an interesting aside.

Unless you live in the USA and have taken out a substantial loan, you have probably never heard the name Freddie Mac. Created in 1970, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) known as “Freddie Mac” was engineered to expand the market for mortgages. In 07, Freddie Mac was found to have a significant role in creating a market where houses sold for much more than they were worth and selling houses to people who could not afford them, given their assets and credit. (The reason why they were doing this is fairly complex, and would take a whole series of posts to adequately explain, but essentially boils down to the oldest reason in the book: Money). It paid a record fine for this (still peanuts to the company) and people were fired or resigned.

Why am I telling you this? What does any of this have to do with the IRS?

Congress demanded answers. They called on the National Security Administration (NSA) to release the emails. (Which, funnily enough, the NSA got in trouble for doing not so long ago). If the NSA can produce these emails when the IRS could not (or would not), there’s really only one conclusion we can come to.

The NSA ought to be in charge of collecting taxes.

~~~

(Special thanks to Forbes for their timeline). You can find funny things about the IRS mess at these links:

The idea of a coming-of-age ceremony has always been a bit strange to me as an atheist. Sure, I attended more than my fair share of Bat and Bar Mitzvahs in middle school. But it always struck me as odd for us to pretend that someone “became an adult” on a particular day, rather than […]

It’s The Matrix meets Braid: a first-person shooter video game “where the time moves only when you move.” You can stare at the bullets streaking toward you as long as you like, but moving to dodge them causes the enemies and bullets to move forward in time as well. The game is called SUPERHOT, and […]

Imagine that you have a big task coming up that requires an unknown amount of willpower – you might have enough willpower to finish, you might not. You’re gearing up to start when suddenly you see a delicious-looking cupcake on the table. Do you indulge in eating it? According to psychology research and decision-theory models, […]

People talk about how Bayes’ Rule is so central to rationality, and I agree. But given that I don’t go around plugging numbers into the equation in my daily life, how does Bayes actually affect my thinking? A short answer, in my new video below: (This is basically what the title of this […]